While Thai Buddhism is plagued with many problems, the controversy over the supreme patriarch nomination underscores the crux of the matter -- the Sangha law that perpetuates a closed and autocratic clergy.
Without changes in the Sangha Act, any efforts to restore public faith by making the clergy relevant to modern society are bound to fail.
According to the Sangha Act, the Sangha Supreme Council (SSC) must nominate the most senior somdet phra racha khana -- an equivalent to cardinals in the Catholic Church -- to be the supreme patriarch.
Under this law, it is only right that Somdet Phra Maha Ratchamangalacharn, the 90-year-old abbot of Wat Pak Nam Phasi Charoen, aka Somdet Chuang, should be nominated by the SSC, as pointed out by Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam. The SSC initially kept the nomination secret to avoid protests due to Somdet Chuang's ties with the controversial Dhammakaya Temple.
According to the Sangha Act, the government must next present the name of the nominated supreme patriarch to His Majesty for royal appointment. Interestingly, Mr Wissanu has stressed that the government must weigh the pros and cons of the new appointment. Besides, the government is duty-bound not to present any matters to His Majesty when they are still controversial.
Recognising the legality of the nomination appeases the elders. Delaying the actual appointment of the new patriarch until the conflict dies down -- certainly not very soon given the still-fierce colour-coded politics -- will pacify the protesters. Dhammakaya is not only feared for taking over the clergy with its capitalist version of Buddhism, it is also perceived as very close to the Shinawatras.
While putting the supreme patriarch's appointment on the back burner is a wise political move, it will not help to answer the country's need for reform of the clergy in any way.
Both the SSC and Mr Wissanu cited the Sangha Act to back the legality of the supreme patriarch nomination as if it was a sacred text. It is not; it has always been a controversial piece of law.
The current Sangha Act was promulgated under strongman Sarit Thanarat to repeal the clergy's administration under a parliamentary system to hand over sole decision-making power to a small group of elders in their 70's, 80's and 90's.
Without an effective secretariat manned with competent monks, the Sangha Council has been helpless against rising monastic misconduct, commercialisation of Buddhism and temple corruption. Worse, they are seen as part of the problem -- the autocratic, feudal system that severely punishes dissent while vulnerable to materialistic temptation.
There have been several attempts by younger monks to amend the Sangha Act to modernise the clergy. All were crushed as they were viewed as a threat to the status quo.
Mr Wissanu said the government wants to find the real reason for the nomination controversy. He need not look far. It is the Sangha law.
The nomination of the supreme patriarch will have more legitimacy if the decision is made in a more open system and the choice is based on the candidates' performance and vision, not only ecclesiastic ranks. The clergy will also be stronger to meet modern challenges if the system is transparent and decentralised.
Since the Sangha Act freezes the clergy into a feudal system, the elders see no need to keep up with new needs, threatening the education of monks and the irrelevance of the monastic society. The controversy over the supreme patriarch's nomination stems from this archaic law, which urgently needs to be overhauled.